Why do people find taker cringeworthy? I get his last match being

This board just hates what people like.
It's all shitposting at this point.

>>2623535
>I get his last match being cringe but was his whole career?
18+ if true

They ain't hating on him, they're just RIBBIN their fave champion.

Taker is deffo /ourguy/

>>2623539
fpbp

He's your old childhood dog with a degenerative disease who still thinks he's still a puppy. He brings you his toy, excited that he made it over without feinting or soiling himself. You throw the toy and he falls over trying to get it, but you won't put him down because of the memories. So you look away and cringe, and try and be happy with what's left.

>>2623539
We're just having fun. We shitpost about those we'd normally cheer, and rave about those we'd normally boo.

>>2623535
all of his good matches were with guys who were known for carrying losers to good matches. taker never carried anyone to a good match and it was obvious in his match with reigns that he's never elevated other talent. it also exposed roman as someone who can't do it either though, so roman is basically the new taker except roman has a better gimmick

>>2623535
>played a mortician/deadman/lord of darkness for 100 years
>not cringe

He was only cringe during his biker days. He was an insufferable twat.

Get outta muh yard

>>2623570
>muh soup bones
>*spits tobacco*

File: undertaker-gloves.jpg (66KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 650x366px

>>2623567
his mma kick was way more cringe
>wears mma gloves with all his other deadman gear
>DA BEST PURE STRIKER
>submissions
didnt even have a worked mma match to top it all off

>>2623554
What is Roman's gimmick?

>>2623567
He was still really over even with that shit though, even after his dead ass cost The Rock the world title in his return. Why they did that I have no idea.

>>2623581
That's a decently fair criticism. Undertaker as a character peaked in 1998 for me.

I unironically enjoyed biker taker come at me

>>2623597
So did I.

>>2623597
>>2623604
No, you didn't.

He's a good wrestler but since /asp/ is more anti-smark we're way more sceptical of WWE revisionist history. Fact is, he was a bit player in the company's hottest periods and was not a good champion. He didn't even have good matches until very late in his career. Also, he just seems like he's a bit of a mark for his character, I respect him for living the gimmick but pretending to be an MMA striker when you look like Fraser Crane's Goth cousin is just embarrassing.

>>2623610
Yes, I did.

File: 1492972153675.jpg (44KB, 585x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 585x480px

>>2623597
2000-2001 Taker was pretty bad. Big Evil on the other hand was based.

>>2623535
Because he looks fucking retarded

>>2623634
This.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qlfp8BOPDg

>>2623535
it's classic /asp/ contrarianism
either that or they're too young and stupid to have been around during his prime

File: 52.jpg (15KB, 276x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 276x360px

>>2623535
90-97 Taker was ok. The spoopy shit worked back then.

98-99 Taker was GOAT. Spoopy but mixed with evil. More mature themes befitting the attitude era. Also he was a better heel than he ever was a face.

00-01 Biker Taker was ok.

01-03 Big Evil Taker was better. Especially the heel part.

04-17 Taker was pure cringe. They should never have brought back the spoopy shit. I genuinely hated every moment of it, even though there was a patch where he was doing the best in-ring work if his career (08-10).

>>2623551
IT'S THE IMAGEBOARD AFTER WRESTLEMANIA

>>2623554
>>2623585
Roman's gimmick is "Guy who wins all the time." he has no personality besides smug jock who likes to beat people up.

Besides his whole gimmick, whats a specific undertaker moment that had you cringing so bad you had to look away or change the channel?

>>2623705
This.

Except for one thing. They should have brought back spoopy Taker in 04, but only for retirement.

He retires in 04 with a more credible and sound legacy on the top of his game.

>>2623539
>the boo people you normally cheer and cheer people you normally boo
18+. carder was always cringe

>>2623535
His gimmicks were always cringe worthy.

>>2623535
He sucked before Ruthless Aggression era, then WWE started booking him like a god because Vince had no more Rocky, Austin, or Hogan to put asses in seats.

Now, he's every 2000s babby's favorite wrestler. Forgetting that people were chanting "please retire" in arenas around the country in 2001.

>>2623888
>He sucked before Ruthless Aggression era
He wa fucking great before that. In prime phsycial condition and played his gimmick to perfection. Even during New Generation when he was stuck with a series of garbage opponents like Giant Gonzalez or King Kong Bundy he still consistently managed to wake up the crowd whenever he showed up.

>Forgetting that people were chanting "please retire" in arenas around the country in 2001
Source? I've been watching 2001 Raw and he was consistently over with the crowd, even a year in to the shitty biker gimmick.

File: biker_taker_png_2_by_ambriegnsasylum16-daq3jtf.png (293KB, 402x643px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 402x643px

>>2623567
Big Evil was okay. Especially that title run in 02/

>>2623581
Based Deadman who adopted the techniques of our current world to maximize his punishment even if he has been around for centuries!

>>2623705
Ministry Taker you either love or hate. I felt that was when the character jumped the shark and was a bit ridiculous. Biker Taker was shit, but at least it was fresh.

>>2623535
Please name one good promo.
Please name one good match that didn't require his opponent taking extreme bumps and being rag dolled.
Please name one good storyline he was apart of.
Please name a wrestler he elevated.

Those are all rhetorical questions because there is no answer for them.

I've never enjoyed anything Undercarder has ever done because it's all been pointless like everything Bray Wyatt does.

Oh you tied someone to a cross? They are back next week
Oh you buried someone alive in a casket? They are back next week.
Oh you threw someone off a cell? They are back next day.

WHATEVER! Go away! You suck and everything you do is corny and childish. Nice eye liner too fag.

>>2624103
You can erase Undertaker's entire career and it doesn't affect the history of the WWE at all. Definition of a midcarder.

>>2624103
The Kane storyline I enjoyed as a kid but in general I agree.

>>2624103
He elevated Jeff Hardy and Brock Lesnar in 2002.

>>2624081
https://youtu.be/gpBqMlBu99Q

>>2623535
everything before and after his WHC phase was cringe as fuck

>>2624103
>Best Promo
Takers best promos were when Paul was still around. Paul really bigged up his deadman gimmick and made it seem good. Taker played well of them. So in terms of promos, i can agree, not the best. But good enough.

>One good match
There are a lot, but you'll find something to hate. I'll name some anyway and i'll wait to see what you disagree with and how.
.Vs Kane Unforgiven 1998
.Vs foley(Mankind) 1996 at Buried Alive
.Vs Brock No Mercy 2002
.Vs Kurt No Way Out 2006
.Vs HHH Wrestlemania 27
.Vs Kane Wrestlemania 14
.Vs Shawn Wrestlemania 26
.Vs Shawn Wrestlemania 25

>One good storyline.
Ministry of Darkness
First feud with Kane
Punk with the ashes
Him and Foley's(Mankind) rivalry

>Wrestler he's elevated
(Elevated does not necessarily mean brought from nothing, it just means he's made them better in the eyes of the world watching them)
Shawn Michaels
Brock via streak
Edge
Foley
Kane


I can tell you will have some negative response to this, as this board always does. But on the off chance, i do hope you have a good argument to prove me wrong rather than the usual insults of /asp/

>>2623554
>all of his good matches were with guys who were known for carrying losers to good matches

He had good matches with Bret, HBK, Brock, Angle, Batista, Henry, and Punk. Maybe Triple H based on their WM 17 match?

>>2624116
>Brock Lesnar in 2002

Had his third great match ever with Brock and one of the best WWE matches ever.

>>2624138

Not a real fan of Taker/Foley and especially Kane/Taker matches.

>>2624103
He saved Randy Orton after Gaytch kept burying him over and over again in 2004 killing his momentum

>>2624163
Fair enough, not everyone is a fan. But during those times, they were definitely some of the best around.

The problem with people saying things today like "so and so isn't the best, how could people have ever liked them" is that this was during the time the internet wasn't as big and kayfaybe was still a big thing.
So botches weren't called on as much, people still believed that match results would have devastating value and everyone back then pretty much enjoyed all of the edgy shit that happened.

If someone like Undertaker never existed, and then made a debut on Raw or Smackdown today, he'd be nowhere near as over as he used to be. He's a classic old-school wrestler who relied on his gimmick like Hogan did, and made that his most valuable thing as an entertainer.

All in all, i think Taker just stayed too long, and the like-factor for him fell down to just his Wrestlemania streak. He simply got too old for it.

File: irsvut08.jpg (64KB, 320x215px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 320x215px

Fucking contrarian /asp/ies. Dude is one of the GOATs on longevity alone. Even if he should have retired five years ago.

Arguably saved the WWF during the lean years in the early 90's. Helped put over nearly all the major talent of the last 30 years. Most respected man in the locker room. Loyal company man through and through. Last of the true old-school wrestlers.

Also, don't forget the reason he was originally called "The Phenom." There had never been a big man who could move like he could and do the things he did.

>b-but muh lack of championships
Dude didn't need gold to be over as fuck - which he was for the entirety of his career. Huge pops until the very end. Other guys needed the belts more, so they were the ones who got them.

>le undercarder
Name a wrestler who isn't dicking the boss' daughter who main evented more matches.

>>2623567
Fuck off nigger Big Evil was based.
>I'll tell you what say "What" if you like to sleep with your own sister

>>2624186
>kayfaybe was still a big thing

To kids who knew no better.

>But during those times, they were definitely some of the best around.

Nah. Even just looking at WWE during that time, that's untrue. Taker had far better matches with Bret and Shawn in 1997, his first great matches, than any match with Foley and Kane. We have the better matches in 1996 like Austin/Bret, Foley/HBK, Nash/HBK, Vader/HBK, Owen/HBK, and you start to see a bit of a pattern there.

>>2624224
>Dude is one of the GOATs on longevity alone.

Nah, being around a long time doesn't make you a GOAT. Being great for a long time does and Taker wasn't. He had years of gaps between great matches and didn't have a great match for like the first decade of his career.

>>2624235
WHAT?

>>2624250
A man of fine tastes.

>>2623549
Sadly, this.

>>2624237
>Nah, being around a long time doesn't make you a GOAT
>Being great for a long time does
Austin and Rock's full time WWF runs both roughly spanned 6 years. They're dwarfed by Cena or Triple H's runs, yet no one would bat an eye in saying are among the GOATs. Taker was been consistently over with audiences and has had his fair share of great matches for over 27 years. No one, including literally fucking everyone in the business, aside from autists on this board disputes the fact that Taker is GOAT material.

>>2624280

>Completely misinterpreting that line

I did not say you had to have a long peak or long period of greatness to be a GOAT. All it mean was being around a long time is meaningless if you were mostly putting out mediocrity.

>>2624286
And all I'm saying was that he was consistently great for almost 3 decades. He was always over with audiences from his debut and has put on a plethora of classic matches dotted throughout his career. What part of that is mediocore? I have to question how much of this guys career you've actually seen and that you're not just basing this off of /asp/ shitposting to at all think Taker shouldn't be considered a GOAT.

>>2623828
Hogan not being able to chase his ass up the ramp on a motorbike cause he couldn't get it started and Undertaker's long ass winded promo he cut on him wearing a grey hoodie

>>2624103
That promo where he talked about stranding Big Show in the desert. He is matches with Bret and Diesel were good

Taker was never the guy that made money.
He was the guy that simply did his job and showed a lot of loyalty to the boss and kept things in line while other people made money.
Could he have been replaceable? Sure but he did a lot of good to his credit.
"Wrestler's Court" is just a fraction of what he did, he called the shots when Vince wasn't around: told Nash what moves not to do when he was green, forced Michaels to put Austin over because it was the right thing to do.
Hell, he didn't just lose at Wrestlemania to the next big thing once. He did it twice.

Yeah his character was fucking cornballs but who gives a shit, it's all fun and games at the end.
Fucking Lucha Underground has a guy pretty much ripping him off to great success.

>>2624400
>And all I'm saying was that he was consistently great for almost 3 decades
He was consistently great for 3 years out of 3 decades. Before 2003, he was god awful. And he was only great after 2007, only wrestling 3 more years full-time.

Only underage e-drones who only saw him in the tailend of his career think he's a GOAT.

If you think he's a GOAT, can you name me one great Taker promo?

>>2624728
"Give you soul to your God, the rest of you belongs to me"
Circa around Psycho Sid's championship run. For what it was worth and what he could work with.

No match with Sting :(. I'm guessing Vince and Taker couldn't bare the possibility of a WCW guy possibly getting cheered over WWE's most brand representative guy.

>>2623535
He's a grown man wearing makeup and pretending to be a zombie that happens to love MMA

>>2623535
worked

>>2623535
He overstayed his welcome, shoulda retired a few years ago. Now he's just a washed up old man still playing his "dead man" character. We are in an age of wrestling where there aren't many goofy characters, everyone is just themselves, so he doesn't really fit in.

>>2623535

He exists as the wrestling equivalent of a meme.

>>2625109
vince going out of his way to appease smarks with that bland "there aren't many goofy characters, everyone is just themselves" shit is the reason why ratings tanked

>>2623535
He stank up the entire 21st century. He was bearable in the 90s at least.

>>2623828
When he cut the worst promo about going to the desert on bikes with Big Show and essentially rambling and being incoherent. Saw that shit live, it still confuses me.

>>2624728
>can you name one good Taker promo
The one he cut on Triple H to ignite the feud for their WM17 match. The crowd were 100% behind and seemingly popped after every sentence.

You autists keep stating this bullshit like he only started being good after 2003 or 2007 or whatever bullshit qualifier that you slap on and I simply disagree.

I've been going through the eras over the past few months, from the Golden Age to New Generation to Attitude and now Ruthless Aggression. The man remained consistently over with the crowd, both as a heel and even more as a face, for almost a decade and a half of WWF programming. Yet you autists will sit here and act like that never happened and contend that he only ascended from some scmuck to good when your jumbled memory of events kick in or some bullshit. Go back and actually watch some of this stuff. It can't be understated how he managed to remain over with audiences even during the darkest days of the New Generation. It truly is amazing. That's a feat the even Hogan couldn't pull off until he had to take complete 180 with his character.

>>2625301
>being over means you're a great wrestler

Okay.

File: image.gif (1MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x150px

>>2625312
>Preforming the one thing a pro wrestler is meant to accomplish for decades straight doesn't make you a great pro wrestler
The fucking state of your mental gymnastics

>>2624224
> saved WWF during the lean years
No, he was never in a position to save anything because he wasn't a top star, he was always in the Andre "attraction role". Bret was the one who kept the sinking ship just above water but even he wasn't enough. Stone Cold saved it.

>>2625325
You misunderstand, nobody can deny he was a good wrestler, but the difference between good and great is important, it's basically the difference between being over and being a draw. He was iver, but there were always people more over than him. There were always people having better matches than him. Even when he had that one "good promo", there were a dozen guys doing it better. He was average in all respects. Longevity and loyalty will get you a lot of places, but it's not a substitute for talent.

>>2625365
>but the difference between good and great is important
This distinction is meaningless and just feels like reaching at this point. The man checked all the boxes a pro wrestler should and did so for almost 3 decades. That with the added bonus that he played a gimmick to perfection for that same amount obviously signifies talent, it's just a little bit more subtle than some flashy promo or "great match".

>>2625378
As I said, it's the difference between being over and being super over or a draw. Austin, Rock, Hogan, Flair all great wrestlers because they were the full package as a character, in the main event, having great matches and drawing money.

Taker was not on that level, he wasn't even on the level below with say a Bret, HBK or Angle. He was a bit player. You get kudos points for playing a gimmick but it doesn't make you great by any stretch of the imagination.

>>2625398
>wreck flel
>drawing money
kek

>>2625398
> mentioning flairetty in that bracket

Hello Dave
You will never get this meme over so stop trying

>>2625413
He did, just not after WWF took over everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG__BPaRijA

Post a better entrance than this. I dare you.

>>2625666
This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1KbH9lUtms

ok whos got the copypasta handy

File: 10446091_405121382977870_2459318913776861199_o.jpg (12KB, 984x691px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 984x691px

>>2623535

>>2623828
I think he was working Shawn Michaels at the time. It was 06-08
>You took something that belongs to me
>This Sunday I'm going to take something that belongs to you
>Your sooouuuul.
It was one of the last RAWs I watched for five years, and Undertaker's bullshit was one of the main reasons.

Never liked his "shooting lightning from the roof" gimmick ass, I liked him when he came back on the 2001 or so and was the american badass / biker 'taker, that one at least I didn't had to be drunk to believe what I was watching.

Too bad he ditched that gimmick, people just enjoy extremely cringe shit I guess, good thing he finally retired though and also in the way he deserved it, having an horrible match with a mess of a guy as Roman, that's what you get for overstaying your welcome and not retiring once Lensar concussed your ass.

>audience pops like crazy every single time they hear a gong
>asp calls him an anti draw

Personally I think he retired at the best time. At the time that he jist couldn't do it anymore. It was like Leonidas in 300. He went until the bitter end.

Also 1998 Undertaker was goat. Goat theme, goat persona, goat mic skills. Wish he had spent his last few years as this taker